Mohamad Jafar vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mohanad Jafar, approached the High Court of Telangana challenging the order dated 05-02-2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent (Deputy State Tax Officer) cancelling his GST registration. The cancellation was based on the violation of Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for failing to furnish returns for the prescribed periods. The petitioner contended that he had paid the entire tax liability but the cancellation occurred due to miscommunication between his Chartered Accountant and the department. He sought an opportunity to approach the competent authority under Rule 23(1) of the GST Rules, 2017, for revocation of the cancellation.
Held
The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, deemed it proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with an application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration. The Court directed that if the petitioner files such an application, supported with all necessary particulars, within a period of two weeks, the competent authority would consider it in accordance with the law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the decision hinges on the procedural opportunity granted to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to approach the competent authority for revocation of his GST registration cancellation, despite the delay beyond the prescribed time, given his claim of having paid the tax liability and attributing the non-furnishing of returns to miscommunication? The Petitioner argued that the cancellation order was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice. He claimed to have paid all tax dues and attributed the non-filing of returns to a miscommunication. He specifically sought liberty to approach the competent authority under Rule 23(1) of the GST Rules, 2017, to explain the circumstances and seek revocation. The Respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, acknowledged the petitioner's claim of discharged tax liability and miscommunication. They submitted that the Court could, if it deems fit, allow the petitioner to approach the competent authority for revocation, even if there was a delay beyond the prescribed time. They referred to a Madras High Court decision in Venkatesan v. Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram I, where similar conditions were prescribed for such applications.
Sections Cited
Section 29(2)(c), Rule 23(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made ther following: ORDER
:,.-.*-. ;i:::araat:i4,.{,rr,, \. .ar,: tt ., .,., :. z THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARE.SH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.31603 of 2025 ORDER: Learned counsel Sri V.Ganesh Bhujanga Rao appears for the petitioncr Sri Su,aroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleadcr for State Tax, appears for the respondents.
The petitioner has approached this Cor_rrt against the cancellation of his GST registration vide order dated A5.02.2024 (Annexure P3) on violation of Section 29(2)(c) ol the Central Goods arld Services Tax Act, 2017, for failing to lurnish returns for the prescribed periods 3. l,e arned counsel lor the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid the entire tax liability to the department, but due to miscommunication and time gap betrveen the Chartered Accountant and respondent No.1, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further su-bmits that if the petitioner 1S
f?-@"- aliou.ed to approach the competent authorit.,, ,.Lncler Rule 23(l ) of th,: Oentral Goods and Sen,ices Ta_x ( GST) Rules, 20 L7 , for re vocation of his cancellation of GS'l' registration, he u'ould prefer to seek rer.ocation by expla r ng all these facts and payment of tax etc., before tlLe competent autl-rority.
LearrLed Speciai Government pieader ,11 rpearir-rg for the responrlents submits that since the petitior cr claims to have dischirged the ta-x lrabilitv to the deparr -n ent and has taken a ground of miscommunication, this Cor rt may, if it so deems fit, allor,r, the petitioner to irll lroach the competent authoritv for revocation of cancr,ll rtion of his GST registration, though there is some delz,,' bel,ond the prescribed time. He has also referred to the r:,::nt decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras il .,/enk-atesan v. Commercial Tax Officer, Villupuram I (\it p No.18694 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.20923 of 2025, datec ( 4.06.2025), u,here, in simiiar circumstances, the learn,_-ri Court has prescribed certain conditiolls to be satisii::, I for such application to be considered by the competenl ra rthority.
To,
In the facts ar-rd circumstalces of the case, without commenting cn the merits of the case of the parties, we decm it proper to grart liberty to the petitioner to approach the competcr-rt authority lr,ith an application for revocation of cancellatron of his GST registration. if the petitioner makes such an application supported with all necessary particulars u'ithin a period of two weeks, the competent authority u.ould consider it in accordance with la\4,.
The u,rit petition 1S accordingly disposed of. There shali be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed 1 2 & 4 5 6 7 .P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //' ,/A SECTIOT{-OFFICER The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Gachibowli GST Division. Hyderabad, Telangana. The Deputy State Tax Officer, It/adhapur -7 Hyderabad. State of Telangana, Rep by its Pnncipzrl Secretary, Revenue (CT) Pepartment, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Building, Saifabab, Fiyderabad, Telangana. One CC to SRI GANESH BHUJANGA RAO VADDUR|, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL GP FoR STATE TAX, High, Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT'] Two CCs to GP for REVENIJE, Hi'gh Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies BN
HIGH COURT DATED:23nA12025 ORDER WP.No.31603 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 't-S' I4 i\ c ; I 0{ll 2ff6 t-i\i' * 1', - , iir^-rCr ,ir.g (1 ll {,; *
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.